Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[MarkLindeman]

They are quite similar, yes...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/628055186.png[/qimg]

Would have to have a dig for the more detailed Dan Rather graphs, but the same basic profile...pretty rapid to over-g, then diminishing acceleration.

I'm out of field here, but I doubt that Poly(10) is a great way to smooth an acceleration curve. It may be close enough to draw appropriate qualitative conclusions, but I would expect the hidden assumptions to bite, especially in the presence of measurement error.

This seems like a subtle question in applied time series econometrics, or whatever empirical physicists call their equivalent of econometrics. Like a Kalman filter problem on steroids.

Obviously you've thought almost infinitely more about this than I have. Has there been a good discussion of how to handle the estimation with error?

 

[ozeco41]

...Has there been a good discussion of how to handle the estimation with error?

There has been a lot of discussion of femr2's methods including the smoothing aspects.

Much of that real discussion obscured by noise of multiple attacks directed against matters other than femr2's measurement techniques.

If you keep focus on measurement you will find that a few of us like me take the position that his research work is better than that available from other sources. I am not up to date on the mathematics of numerical methods. However I don't recall anyone posting reasons which persuaded me that the use of poly10 degraded femr's work down to or lower than that of the opposition.

A search on femr2 posts and "poly" should lead you to the discussion. But be aware the threads have a lot of "noise".

 

[Redwood]

Chris - with so much to keep track of, I guess I can see how you lost track.

My little video is not about the difference between red/gray chips and steel wool, but it does show that the creation of iron-rich spheres is not proof of a thermitic reaction!

Hope that helps!

Jones and Harrit hunting around for "iron rich" (not elemental iron) microspheres is a red flag. A thermite reaction MUST produce almost 50% by weight aluminum oxide (alumina). Ignoring the metallic iron question, why not look for globs of easily identifiable alumina? The best spin I could put on this is to ascribe it to incompetence.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris - with so much to keep track of, I guess I can see how you lost track.

My little video is not about the difference between red/gray chips and steel wool, but it does show that the creation of iron-rich spheres is not proof of a thermitic reaction!

Hope that helps!

Your little video is being used in a play on words.

Burning steel wool has absolutely nothing to do with the iron spheres resulting from of heating the red/gray chips to 430^oC, so mentioning it in a discussion of the red/gray chips is deliberate obfuscation.

The iron spheres that the red/gray chips produced prove the a thermitic reaction. Do you know of any primer paint that produces iron spheres when heated to 430^oC?

 

[Christopher7]

There has been a lot of discussion of femr2's methods including the smoothing aspects.

Much of that real discussion obscured by noise of multiple attacks directed against matters other than femr2's measurement techniques.

If you keep focus on measurement you will find that a few of us like me take the position that his research work is better than that available from other sources. I am not up to date on the mathematics of numerical methods. However I don't recall anyone posting reasons which persuaded me that the use of poly10 degraded femr's work down to or lower than that of the opposition.

A search on femr2 posts and "poly" should lead you to the discussion. But be aware the threads have a lot of "noise".

FEMR is a lot of noise. He has no credentials and no credibility at all. He claims to know better than the "experts" at NIST and a teacher with two masters degrees. Only the fanatically faithful believe this anonymous blowhard over people on both sides of the CD argument with real credentials who agree that WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet.

 

[DGM]

The iron spheres that the red/gray chips produced prove the a thermitic reaction. Do you know of any primer paint that produces iron spheres when heated to 430^oC?

Don't you mean to say "iron-rich"? What percentage of iron was that again?

If not, can you show us where pure iron spheres were documented?

You're falling over your own propaganda.

 

[GlennB]

Burning steel wool has absolutely nothing to do with the iron-rich spheres resulting from of heating the red/gray chips to 430^oC, so mentioning it in a discussion of the red/gray chips is deliberate obfuscation.

The iron-rich spheres that the red/gray chips produced prove the a thermitic reaction. Do you know of any primer paint that produces iron-rich spheres when heated to 430^oC?

ftfy. Your bill is mounting and overdue.

 

[Christopher7]

Jones and Harrit hunting around for "iron rich" (not elemental iron) microspheres is a red flag. A thermite reaction MUST produce almost 50% by weight aluminum oxide (alumina). Ignoring the metallic iron question, why not look for globs of easily identifiable alumina? The best spin I could put on this is to ascribe it to incompetence.

You are the one "spinning". The aluminum is released as white smoke and the spheres produced by a thermitic reaction do not contain 50% aluminum as you try to imply.

It is really absurd for a bunch of anonymous blowhards to say Ph.D's with 20 years experience as professors are all wrong.

 

[DGM]

It is really absurd for a bunch of anonymous blowhards to say Ph.D's with 20 years experience as professors are all wrong.

And your criticism of NIST would be different, how?

I bet you hate these double standards.




ETA: That's right, it is different, we know your name.

 

[LSSBB]

FEMR is a lot of noise. He has no credentials and no credibility at all. He claims to know better than the "experts" at NIST and a teacher with two masters degrees. Only the fanatically faithful believe this anonymous blowhard over people on both sides of the CD argument with real credentials who agree that WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet.

If you love NIST so much, why don't you marry it?

I think its obvious who the fanatic blowhard is here. Are you a vampire? It appears you can't see your reflection.

 

[Miragememories]

You are the one "spinning". The aluminum is released as white smoke and the spheres produced by a thermitic reaction do not contain 50% aluminum as you try to imply.

It is really absurd for a bunch of anonymous blowhards to say Ph.D's with 20 years experience as professors are all wrong.

In Wonderland JREF, you can be who and whatever you wish to be.

MM

 

[DGM]

In Wonderland JREF, you can be who and whatever you wish to be.

MM

Says the anonymous "truther".

 

[Oystein]

You are the one "spinning". The aluminum is released as white smoke and the spheres produced by a thermitic reaction do not contain 50% aluminum as you try to imply.

It is really absurd for a bunch of anonymous blowhards to say Ph.D's with 20 years experience as professors are all wrong.

Harrit e.al. pretend that they did the DSC test to replicate the tests Tillotson and Gash did on their nanothermite preparation.

Tillotson and Gash identified the alumina residue and tested it positively using PXRD (powdered X-ray diffraction). Harrit e.al. have not identified ANY alumina residue, neither by sight nor by any analytical method.

Why you claim that "aluminum is released as white smoke" is quite beyond me. It is a made up thing.

Please revisit the Harrit e.al. paper and acknowledge that no aluminium oxide at all has been identified by any method at all by the authors.

Then retract your claim.



You have also not yet acknowledged you are informed of the following facts:

- Harrit e.al.'s chips aren't all the same - chips (a)-(d) for example are different from the MEK-soaked chip
- Chips (a)-(d) resemble both in elemental composition and visual appearance the expected properties of LaClede primer
- The MEK-soaked chip resembled inelemental composition Tnemec 99 primer, as shown by SE Jones

You are on record as denying facts, and have been flagged as probably planning to be dishonest about these facts in the future. Remove those stains from your reputation by facing and acknowledging reality!

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Your little video is being used in a play on words.

Burning steel wool has absolutely nothing to do with the iron spheres resulting from of heating the red/gray chips to 430^oC, so mentioning it in a discussion of the red/gray chips is deliberate obfuscation.

The iron spheres that the red/gray chips produced prove the a thermitic reaction. Do you know of any primer paint that produces iron spheres when heated to 430^oC?

The point of my little video, which is titled "Iron microspheres prove Thermite? ", is that the presence of Iron microspheres does NOT prove Thermite!

...
Be that as it may, the creation of iron-rich spheres is proof of a thermitic reaction, your objections and denial notwithstanding.

I have highlighted your incorrect assertion for you. Now do you get it?

You're welcome!

 

[tsig]

You are the one "spinning". The aluminum is released as white smoke and the spheres produced by a thermitic reaction do not contain 50% aluminum as you try to imply.

It is really absurd for a bunch of anonymous blowhards to say Ph.D's with 20 years experience as professors are all wrong.

The aluminum burned away?

 

[cjnewson88]

Burning steel wool has absolutely nothing to do with the iron spheres resulting from of heating the red/gray chips to 430^oC

Do you know of any primer paint that produces iron spheres when heated to 430^oC?

Chris, you keep saying it, but have no idea of the significance of what you are saying. You keep saying, as it correct, "red/gray" chips. The chips have two layers. You seem to only want to focus on the Red.

What did Millette say the Gray layer was again?.. Oh yeah, "The gray side is consistent with carbon steel."

What would a very small amount of carbon steel do if heated to 430C? Judging by burning steel wool, it would form an Iron-rich sphere.

 

[Miragememories]

"How do you know it's tripe if you don't read it?

So you are running from facts, and dodging acknowledgements of facts, so you can pretend in the future like you still just err, instead being exposed as a liar in clear daylight. I make note of that.

Without tripe:

Can you, or can you not, acknowldege that the chips (a)-(d) are different from the MEK-soaked chip?..."

You persist in your claim that the MEK-soaked chip was not from the same batch of 4 independent samples.

On what basis?

The Bentham Paper clearly indicated that the MEK-soaked chip was from the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, the earliest-collected of the four samples, obtained 10 minutes after the collapse of WTC1.

They called his contribution Sample (2) and that it corresponded with chip (b).

They specifically stated that the MEK-soaked chip came from Sample (2).

MM

 

[carlitos]

How can you say that the green M&M was not one of the 4 red M&M's? The bag is clearly marked "M&Ms."

 

[triforcharity]

Thanks

Of course it's against forum rules to change someones quote but the rules [like insulting other posters] don't apply to the "in" crowd.

Not true, if you denote somehow what has been changed or added.

Be that as it may, the creation of iron-rich spheres is proof of a thermitic reaction, your objections and denial notwithstanding.

Really? Show us some proof of that. I don't recall that being established as fact.....

 

[MarkLindeman]

If you keep focus on measurement you will find that a few of us like me take the position that his research work is better than that available from other sources. I am not up to date on the mathematics of numerical methods. However I don't recall anyone posting reasons which persuaded me that the use of poly10 degraded femr's work down to or lower than that of the opposition.

Oh, goodness, I in no way intended to imply that. Looking at the "raw" measurements, I get the impression that the signal-to-noise ratio is very good. (Not that a graph can be self-validating, but some pretty much are self-rebutting....)

I'm just wondering whether that particular element can be improved. Actually, with or without measurement error, high-order polynomials just often seem to do inappropriate (or questionably appropriate) things. For instance, they may indicate local maxima or minima that aren't observed in the actual data, out of mathematical necessity rather than empirical necessity. Or not.

(As for C7's whistling past the graveyard of his arguments, I want no part of that.)